Yesterday the foreign ministers of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France discussed options for getting Ukraine out of the acute phase of the crisis during useful "Normandy Quartet" talks.
The main result of the three-hour meeting was the ministers call on all sides involved to cease hostilities and to withdraw heavy weapons in accordance with the Line of Contact as stipulated in the Addendum to the Minsk Memorandum of September 19th 2014.
The foreign ministers note with serious concern that their call for full respect of the ceasefire has not been followed, and that, on the contrary, fighting in the Donbas region has severely escalated, causing the loss of many human lives including civilians. "This must stop immediately and the ceasefire must be restored,” - the final statement said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that this is exactly the same as Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed in his letter to Pyotr Poroshenko on January 15. Militias from the breakaway DNR and LC approved the plan to withdraw heavy weaponry and the Russian side is counting on a similar action on the part of Ukraine. In addition, a recommendation was adopted that the Contact Group should intensify its work and set up the necessary number of working sub-groups.
According to Lavrov, such a move is "quite significant, because it institutionalizes the format of the contact group, in which the rebels communicate directly with the Kiev authorities." In the opinion of the Russian side, "only direct dialogue between Kiev and representatives of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics is the key to regulating the deep Ukrainian crisis".
And there was talk about the prospects of the Astana summit.“If progress can be seen in the end of hostilities, in ceasing fire and in stopping the shelling of residential areas, and if there emerges progress in the withdrawal of heavy weapons, then the summit in Astana will be in demand," RIA Novosti cited the Russian minister.
As a result, the foreign ministers have agreed to continue contacts at expert level. However, according to Lavrov, "Not everything depends on the 'Normandy format'. We have merely voiced political support for the issues I have mentioned. It's important that these problems were solved 'on the ground', directly, between representatives of the Kiev authorities and militia. Our chief priority is to start withdrawing heavy weaponry," the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
Sergei Mikheyev, deputy chairman of the editorial board of Vestnik Kavkaza, director general of the Institute for Caspian Cooperation, said that the "usefulness" of the last meeting, like the "Normandy Format" as a whole, is difficult to assess, as there haven't yet been practical steps to resolve the conflict. "At the moment we have targeted negotiations that should have led to greater negotiating process for a fundamental change in Ukraine, in its political system. These changes are necessary if in Kiev or in the West there is a desire to preserve the territorial integrity of Ukraine, because Donetsk and Lugansk won't agree to return to Ukraine in its current format, that's all," the expert pointed out. "For these reasons, the Normandy Quartet, like the Minsk Agreement, is positive but is targeted and, to be honest, is not a very productive format, which at best achieves temporary and unstable truces. Let's see what will happen with the decisions. The question is not whether the agreement is achieved or not, but whether it is carried out or not. We can talk at any level about anything, but, as the example of the September armistice has shown, a full ceasefire has not been established. The Ukrainian side has continued firing, Donetsk and Lugansk have responded. That's the problem - the truce was conditional," the deputy chairman of the editorial board of Vestnik Kavkaza said. Political analyst Alexei Poltorakov agreed that the Normandy Quartet meeting lacks practical results from their follow-up."These meetings complement the overall process dealing with the situation that comes with varying degrees of success. On the other hand, they should not be overestimated, as they are complementary and take on real meaning and real results only when the parties: first, accord with the desire to talk and negotiate, not just speak their position; and secondly, when they are ready to make concessions. That is why Normandy format has slipped - any progress made at recent meetings has been in the Geneva format, the theoretical willingness of the parties to progress has been in the Minsk format. The Normandy format is not very effective yet," the expert said.
Sergei Mikheyev, deputy chairman of the editorial board of Vestnik Kavkaza, director general of the Institute for Caspian Cooperation, said that the "usefulness" of the last meeting, like the "Normandy Format" as a whole, is difficult to assess, as there haven't yet been practical steps to resolve the conflict.
"At the moment we have targeted negotiations that should have led to greater negotiating process for a fundamental change in Ukraine, in its political system. These changes are necessary if in Kiev or in the West there is a desire to preserve the territorial integrity of Ukraine, because Donetsk and Lugansk won't agree to return to Ukraine in its current format, that's all,"- the expert pointed out.
"For these reasons, the Normandy Quartet, like the Minsk Agreement, is positive but is targeted and, to be honest, is not a very productive format, which at best achieves temporary and unstable truces. Let's see what will happen with the decisions. The question is not whether the agreement is achieved or not, but whether it is carried out or not. We can talk at any level about anything, but, as the example of the September armistice has shown, a full ceasefire has not been established. The Ukrainian side has continued firing, Donetsk and Lugansk have responded. That's the problem - the truce was conditional," - the deputy chairman of the editorial board of Vestnik Kavkaza said.
Political analyst Alexei Poltorakov agreed that the Normandy Quartet meeting lacks practical results from their follow-up. "These meetings complement the overall process dealing with the situation that comes with varying degrees of success. On the other hand, they should not be overestimated, as they are complementary and take on real meaning and real results only when the parties: first, accord with the desire to talk and negotiate, not just speak their position; and secondly, when they are ready to make concessions. That is why Normandy format has slipped - any progress made at recent meetings has been in the Geneva format, the theoretical willingness of the parties to progress has been in the Minsk format. The Normandy format is not very effective yet," the expert said.
